I can see the CRTs being lapped once and easily. Maybe close to twice but not quite. This past season there were non CRT bikes finishing up to 1 minute behind the front runners. They may not be factory but they're still leaps ahead of CRT technology. With the CRTs lacking the sophistication of factory electronics with GPS specific programming, lapping should be simple. And I think it will be a danger come lap time. I can already hear Stoner moaning about being on the racing line. Will these back markers even remember what a Blue Flag means?

1) I think you're discounting that a thinly disguised WSBK bike could possibly qualify as a CRT bike (WSBK frames hardly resemble production frames with all the extra bracing allowed) and a front running WSBK-level bike would not be lapped twice during a GP or even close. WSBK bikes are brutally fast and have encountered lappers for years with out the sky-is-falling outcomes everyone is predicting for a still very small GP grid.

2) The blue flag comment is curious as the CRT riders have have been racing in series with passing flags for most of their careers.

3) Stoner will be ten seconds clear of the field so pulling off a safe pass isn't an issue.

Who but the teams really know what they spend? All I know is that it isn't getting cheaper. Dorna talks about cutting costs so what do they do? Add 3 tracks to the calendar for 2013. One of them being way out of the way "as the parrot flies."

They talk about electronics tipping the financial scales. Electronics are cheap. They're on the showroom floor and apparently amazing. Yeah, the GP stuff is faster, GPS enabled and who knows what else they do. The consumer may see that also in a couple years. It's the heaps of programmers that are the budget bloater. Adding a spec ECU won't solve a thing. They'll still have programming teams to pay. The biggest difference is that since the teams don't own the ECU, no new tech can filter down to the consumer. I don't see a single manufacturer going for it. They'll pull out completely and GP will become Moto1. What would be the point in staying if you can't create your own edge?

As Mugwump said, Dorna moves the teams but they charge the teams for moving all the equipment. RoadracerX did a great article on this a few years ago. I'll continue to dispute the budget numbers until someone can tell me where all that money goes. The quoted article says GP chassis cost $250,000 USD. Development, travel and staff are the great expenses. The author mentions a $10 million USD budget for WSBK. MotoGP could easily be two or three times more expensive but I'll never believe its thirty or forty times more expensive. Doesn't make sense. Its well documented that Yamaha Motor Corp lost $1 billion in 2010. What board of directors is going to authorize $300 million for one racing series? The margins on motorcycles (and scooters, ATVs, watercraft, generators) don't allow for that kind of waste.

Its well documented that Yamaha Motor Corp lost $1 billion in 2010. What board of directors is going to authorize $300 million for one racing series? The margins on motorcycles (and scooters, ATVs, watercraft, generators) don't allow for that kind of waste.

Petronas won't be back with Yamaha in 2012. $8 million gone out of their racing budget. Apparently hope that sponsorship from a large Indonesian company will materialize but if not ?? And its well known that Ducati couldn't field a factory MotoGP team without Marlboro money. What if they don't improve significantly next season ? Doubt Marlboro will want to pay to stay if thats the case. As interesting as 2012 is shaping up to be, 2013 could see massive changes that would reshape the landscape of MotoGP.

They talk about electronics tipping the financial scales. Electronics are cheap. They're on the showroom floor and apparently amazing. Yeah, the GP stuff is faster, GPS enabled and who knows what else they do. The consumer may see that also in a couple years. It's the heaps of programmers that are the budget bloater. Adding a spec ECU won't solve a thing. They'll still have programming teams to pay. The biggest difference is that since the teams don't own the ECU, no new tech can filter down to the consumer. I don't see a single manufacturer going for it. They'll pull out completely and GP will become Moto1. What would be the point in staying if you can't create your own edge?

Designing the physical electronis isn't cheap either. Also a spec ECU will mean there will be no large "teams of programmers" * the number of different systems. It would mean one team of programmers.

Well I've had a fractured scapula/ribs in one get off and a broken collar bone in another. And I can tell you, the scapula/ribs injury is much more painful but the broken collar bone is more debilitating.

Logged

I'm on ST.N so its not like I'm a productive member of society anyway. DogBoyIt's the internet. It runs on drama. CablebanditThe difference between fiction and reality is fiction has to be believable. Tom Clancy

" Other proposals include a spec ECU, rev limit, restrictions on engine development and a weight handicap system. "javascript:void(0);

If they do implement weight handicap system I`m out . I won`t watch MotoGP anymore , I`m not interested in NASCRAP style close "competition " or show , I wanna watch pure , real racing even if it means in some years one dude wins 10-12 races and finishes 10-20 seconds ahead of everyone .

Yamaha and Honda should hire some hit man and take care of that Ezpeleta guy .I`m from Chicago , I know some Italian and Russian dudes . I can help .

I'm actually with you on the weight handicap; sure there's an advantage to smaller riders which was more pronounced on the 800s than on the 990s, but that's life. Nobody held a gun to a big galoot's head and said "go race motorbikes, son."

Also, I think it would end up as a net disadvantage for the smaller riders, not parity. If all rider+bike+fuel weights were made identical, the more massive riders might end up with a strength advantage, no?

Logged

I must drink beer. Beer is the mind-killer. Beer is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my beer. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

I'm actually with you on the weight handicap; sure there's an advantage to smaller riders which was more pronounced on the 800s than on the 990s, but that's life. Nobody held a gun to a big galoot's head and said "go race motorbikes, son."

Also, I think it would end up as a net disadvantage for the smaller riders, not parity. If all rider+bike+fuel weights were made identical, the more massive riders might end up with a strength advantage, no?

I'm pretty sure that Dani Pedrosa proved the "strength" argument doesn't hold much weight (har har!). The "experts" all said he wouldn't be strong enough to handle full size GP bikes and quite clearly that isn't the case.

To make what is one of the most difficult and dangerous jobs in the world into an exclusively midget's sport, well, that's lame and would only be bad for the long term. Why not just even it out a bit and let the rider's skill and the machine's strengths be the determining factors? It doesn't have to be NASCAR to be fair.

I don`t think that is what Ezpeleta had on his mind , rider`s size , etc . I`m afraid they want to slap weight penalty based on results , let`s say certain bike wins 6 races in the row and they slap 15 pounds weight penalty .It sort of make sense in WSB because it is practically impossible to get parity between entirely different engine designs like 1200V2 and 1000 4 cylinders but in MotoGp ?

I understand economic realities and necessity to simplify those bikes but common , weight handicap ?

I'm pretty sure that Dani Pedrosa proved the "strength" argument doesn't hold much weight (har har!). The "experts" all said he wouldn't be strong enough to handle full size GP bikes and quite clearly that isn't the case.

To make what is one of the most difficult and dangerous jobs in the world into an exclusively midget's sport, well, that's lame and would only be bad for the long term. Why not just even it out a bit and let the rider's skill and the machine's strengths be the determining factors? It doesn't have to be NASCAR to be fair.

I'm going to agree with both you and tomek. The kind of weight handicap he's talking about, adding pounds to series leaders to even the field, would really suck at this level of the sport. I know it's used a lot in sports car and touring car series and they have to do that to keep manufacturers in the game, but you'd like to think the economy can support one real built to formula, prototype series. I'd hate to see MotoGP engineers penalized for doing well. Other kinds of cost cutting moves -- like the spec tires or a common ECU -- hold the engineering in one area constant but the teams can still compete on the rest of the machine. The kind of "fast guys start in the back so we have a good show" thinking behind the weight handicap isn't about the teams competing at all, just promoters putting on a performance.

I'm not so opposed to including the rider in an overall weight limit. F1 does that. A smaller driver is still a big advantage because of how you can distribute the additional ballast to balance the car. Smaller riders would surely still be a big advantage in MotoGP because of balance, too, but you wouldn't have as much pressure to find jockey-sized riders.

Everybody's taking about the weight restrictions, but the restrictions on engine development get me riled up. MotoGP is a PROTOTYPE series. Development should be ongoing throughout the entire season.

It has been said before, but if they want to cut costs and create exciting racing, then mandate a spec ECU with VERY limited traction control. That would eliminate a ton of costs in data collection and programming personnel.

In the documentary FASTEST, one of the yamaha engineers talks about how they can log data on 200 different channels!!!! They don't look at nearly that much data on a routine basis, but the capability is there and obviously they need that data at some point or they wouldn't have that capability. I wonder how many of those channels are also inputs into the ECU for traction control/wheelie control/launch control? What would happen if a spec-ECU only handled 20 inputs?

I'm no race engineer (wish I was!) but out of curiousity lets compile a list of what minimum inputs would be required for a MotoGP bike to run and still have some basic traction control capabilities:

CRT teams test in Europe. Factories test in warmer climates halfway around the world. Is this:

a) an attempt cut travel budgets for CRT teams?b) Dorna's plan to avoid any direct on-track comparisons until nearly the start of the season?c) something to do with putting some more GP dollars into Spanish tracks?d) more Carmelo Ezpeleta silliness?e) all of the above